SA supports UN security council on Syria

Johannesburg - The Syrian people must decide their own fate, including their future leadership, the South African government said on Monday.

International relations spokesperson Clayson Monyela said there should be no foreign interference in the decision-making processes on the future of Syria.

On Saturday, China and Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution on Syria which would have encouraged Syrian President Bashar Assad to give up power after nearly a year of fighting between the government and opposition groups.

The Arab League wants Assad to hand over power to a deputy and begin the transition to democracy. The UN resolution supported this process.

"Any solution must preserve the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria," said Monyela.

"We were satisfied that the final draft resolution was not aimed at imposing regime change in Syria, which would be against the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

South Africa voted in favour of the UN resolution because it facilitated Syrian-led political dialogue with the aim of achieving long-term peace and stability.

Monyela said the League of Arab States had both knowledge of and proximity to the situation in Syria, which is currently suspended from the league because of its government's resistance to move towards democracy.

"It should be supported and given the necessary political space to find a solution to the crisis," said Monyela.

For regional and international peace and security, the situation in Syria needed the global community to act responsibly, he said.

Comments

ivan.coetzee2 - 2012-02-06 13:40

Quickly, where's the SA backed roadmap for Syria?? Damn, it only goes as far as the Karoo??

Infact when the ANC and the Nat government sat down for negotiations we told the Europeans to but out of our processes as they always have hidden agendas when influencing other countries'discourse, so our government has been pretty consistant and well done to them for nor alligning our foreign policy with that of neocons.

ludlowdj - 2012-02-06 14:21

If the UN inserts a non military clause in the resolution both China and Russia would have supported it and it would have gone through, however the West does not want to rule out military intervention and as US history clearly shows Western Military intervention will simply result in internal destabilization and the prospect of many years of in fighting and loss of life to resolve. Libya hailed as a success is proof of this as is the expected Taliban take-over of Afghanistan. The West is little more than a group of wealth and elite who enslave their own populations and expect to rule the world.

Heiku - 2012-02-06 15:07

I agree with Frank. An irrelevant comment?! Perhaps politically motivated?! On the internet of all places?! It's an outrage.

DSBennie - 2012-02-06 15:10

The resolution forbade military intervention, the reason it was vetoed was that it called for the banning of the sales of weapons to the Syrian regime and Russia and China sell lots of weapons to them so don't want to loose the market

Graham - 2012-02-06 15:14

@Frank and Heiku. It is a fact that Russia and China would have supported the resolution if there had been a non-military clause. They have both released press statements to that effect. One needs to read news from multiple sources in order to hear/read the various statements made by countries. In SA we mainly get news from SA, British and US media...

Graham - 2012-02-06 15:16

@DSBennie - Britain also sold countries like Syria (in the 2000s) and Iraq (in the 80s) weapons. When it comes to weapon sales, no country that makes them is clean, because it is all about the money!

Fred - 2012-02-06 19:49

Why should there be a non-military clause? Assad is slaughtering Syrians every day. They deserve protection. Wake up.

Heiku - 2012-02-06 21:37

@Graham. If you're into muslim/arab propaganda as opposed to western propaganda you can watch Al Jazeera on dstv.

allcoveredinNinjas - 2012-02-06 15:37

The Syrian people only have one choice - Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party , thats it .Its a one-party state ! If there is no choice then the people cannot choose anything. This is why both communist nations vetoed (Russia's pseudo-democracy is hardly choice - putin ,putin or putin).

Fidel - 2012-02-07 01:51

As if the Americans or British have a real choice between their respective two party political system, it's all an illussion to deceive simpletons like you. Russia and China aren't asking other nationalities to adopt their value system or types of governance.

Mark - 2012-02-07 02:11

Oh Fidel, what about a little thing called the Prague Spring, or the Warsaw Pact? How about a little place called Tibet? Since the 1960's, it has been China and Russia that have have shown the classic colonial model, while the so-called 'West' only learned to disguise it better. So stop acting like the former Soviet Bloc are angels to the 'foreign devils' of the US and her allies. Idiots will always loathe the intelligent, beause of the caveman mentality that 'Smart one steal my meat! Ug Ug' - now back to your hole in the wall.

Thozi - 2012-02-06 16:51

SA is very interesting; today they support, tomorrow when Bashar Assad is toppled, they'll be saying they did not mean support in that way. You just cant trust these guys...

Heiku - 2012-02-06 21:38

I'm sure nobody cares what our government has to say.

Fidel - 2012-02-07 01:55

"We were satisfied that the final draft resolution was not aimed at imposing regime change in Syria, which would be against the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
What more do the Washington cheerleaders expect from our government. It is up to the Syrian people to decide who they want their government to be and not the despicable autocratic Arab League or the warmongering West.